Measuring global temperatures: Satellites or thermometers?

The official global temperature numbers are in, and NOAA and NASA have decided that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Based mostly upon surface thermometers, the official pronouncement ignores the other two primary ways of measuring global air temperatures, satellites and radiosondes (weather balloons).

The fact that those ignored temperature datasets suggest little or no warming for about 18 years now, it is worth outlining the primary differences between these three measurement systems.

Three Ways to Measure Global Temperatures

The primary ways to monitor global average air temperatures are surface based thermometers (since the late 1800s), radiosondes (weather balloons, since about the 1950s), and satellites measuring microwave emissions (since 1979). Other technologies, such as GPS satellite based methods have limited record length and have not yet gained wide acceptance for accuracy.

While the thermometers measure near-surface temperature, the satellites and radiosondes measure the average temperature of a deep layer of the lower atmosphere. Based upon our understanding of how the atmosphere works, the deep layer temperatures are supposed to warm (and cool) somewhat more strongly than the surface temperatures. In other words, variations in global average temperature are expected to be magnified with height, say through the lowest 10 km of atmosphere. We indeed see this during warm El Nino years (like 2015) and cool La Nina years.

The satellite record is the shortest, and since most warming has occurred since the 1970s anyway we often talk about temperature trends since 1979 so that we can compare all three datasets over a common period.

Temperatures of the deep ocean, which I will not address in detail, have warmed by amounts so small — hundredths of a degree — that it is debatable whether they are accurate enough to be of much use. Sea surface temperatures, also indicating modest warming in recent decades, involve an entirely new set of problems, with rather sparse sampling by a mixture of bucket temperatures from many years ago, to newer ship engine intake temperatures, buoys, and since the early 1980s infrared satellite measurements.

How Much Warming?

Since 1979, it is generally accepted that the satellites and radiosondes measure 50% less of a warming trend than the surface thermometer data do, rather than 30-50% greater warming trend that theory predicts for warming aloft versus at the surface.

This is a substantial disagreement.

Why the Disagreement?

There are different possibilities for the disagreement:

1) Surface thermometer analyses are spuriously overestimating the true temperature trend 2) Satellites and radiosondes are spuriously underestimating the true temperature trend 3) All data are largely correct, and are telling us something new about how the climate system operates under long-term warming.

Related

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (11)

Amber

Why don’t we site the specific year instead of saying “on record” ? Most people don’t have a clue that the “record ” started about four years after Leonardo DiCaprio was born .

If a survey was done I guarantee most people have no clue when the data started to be collected and whether it is land based , satellite, or the current trend “adjusted ” NOAA data without2/3 of the world’s surface being included .

Right now global warming promoters are getting away with their typical slight of hand half truth to fan the scary global warming members .

The earth has been far warmer than the current estimates of selective massaged data . Why not say, while estimating ,that the earth has been 10 % warmer than the present time based on the studies of historic earth temperatures. Isn’t it time to be honest with people about the date of the record , the probability of error , the sources of information and things excluded ?

Setting that aside, in the perfect world ,to achieve a 90% probability or better estimate what about the current means of data collection and calculations needs to be improved ?

NOAA ‘s attempt to recast numbers smells like political motivated fudge and they certainty are not going out of their way to educate the public about the date of the record they refer to and how it was arrived at .

The current method of sharing information is get the scary headline then sometime later reveal that …well those calculations were only land based readings . This form of misinformation manipulation and arguably deceit is disturbing from an organization that sells itself as being scientifically credible .

Funny how the satellite data was considered just fine till it didn’t show what the government wanted .

The satellite data collection system was started was started to provide better information because obviously the inconsistency and accuracy of land based readings has credibility challenges .

What was the business case for launching weather monitoring satellites ?. No mention of greater accuracy ,short comings with land based and water based system ?

Sticking land based thermometers on airport tarmacs while missing almost entire continents is not going to produce highly accurate estimates yet the public is fed a load of crap that these pronouncements are credible .

So the next scary pronouncement of “record ” temperatures should at least say” the record … since Leonardo Dicaprio was 4 years old, or some reference point to inform the public instead the manipulative garbage they are being fed now .

Can government agencies be charged with wire fraud ?

Mike Haseler

I’m sorry, there is no way on earth the surface data is credible. Not only is it heavily adjusted, but it suffers from urban heating (due to historical siting near urban centres that then grew). Watts has shown many times the sites are poor quality – and worse the academics compiling the data either don’t care or are in denial.

Then we see the intentional change of methods in order to produce warming, the repeated and very credible accusations of fraudulent changes to temperature data at many sites. We have the fact surface data is far from global.

Yes satellites are not ideal – but at least they are corroborated by independent measurement from met balloon data.

So, on the one hand we have surface data with multiple reasons to believe it has been “upjusted” on the other we have independently corroborated satellites. – It’s not a difficult decision which to base our views on.

Amber

Mike Haseler “No way on earth the surface data is credible ” . Agreed, how could it be ? It was never set up to provide an earth temperature with accuracy and certainly not to the point where fractions of one degree changes are credible representations of the earth’s temperature .

More than half the weather stations in Antarctica for example were put in place during the 1980’s and prior to that less than 50 weather stations were operating in an area bigger than the USA . Like wise ocean weather buoys are relatively new starting in the 1980’s replacing a small fleet of weather ships . The point is weather “records ” are relatively new andland based ones have location and coverage issues amongst other things .

Claims of highest or lowest on record on the scale of an earth measurement are fraught with complications that cannot make various assertions debatable .

Me

[quote name=”Amber”]Mike Haseler “No way on earth the surface data is credible ” . Agreed, how could it be ? It was never set up to provide an earth temperature with accuracy and certainly not to the point where fractions of one degree changes are credible representations of the earth’s temperature .

More than half the weather stations in Antarctica for example were put in place during the 1980’s and prior to that less than 50 weather stations were operating in an area bigger than the USA . Like wise ocean weather buoys are relatively new starting in the 1980’s replacing a small fleet of weather ships . The point is weather “records ” are relatively new andland based ones have location and coverage issues amongst other things .

Claims of highest or lowest on record on the scale of an earth measurement are fraught with complications that cannot make various assertions debatable .

Dr. Spencer’s article is a welcome insight .[/quote]Mike Haseler “No way on earth the surface data is credible ” . Agreed, how could it be? It was never set up to provide an earth temperature with accuracy and certainly not to the point where fractions of one degree changes are credible representations of the earth’s temperature.

More than half the weather stations in Antarctica for example were put in place during the 1980’s and prior to that less than 50 weather stations were operating in an area bigger than the USA. Like Wise Ocean weather buoys are relatively new starting in the 1980’s replacing a small fleet of weather ships. The point is weather “records ” are relatively new andland based ones have location and coverage issues amongst other things.

Claims of highest or lowest on record on the scale of an earth measurement are fraught with complications that cannot make various assertions debatable.

Me

PPM, power, prestige, and money! Anyone that can think for them selves will know! It’s science and not religion, it’s science not government, and it’s science not consensus. PPM is the value we give it, it is the value they take advantage of.

Aido

It gets even more dodgy. The ‘anomalies’ are differences from a 30-year average, referred to as the ‘norm’.. 1930-1960, then 1960-1990, which is the current ‘norm’. If you took 1940-1970, or 1950-1980 as the ‘norm’, you’d get different figures. How anyone falls for this beats me.

Amber

Ricky C
About 60 million voters would likely agree with you . Some people like to rescue pit bulls to because they figure they can “fix ‘ them .
Donald Trump doesn’t need one of his top enemies buttering up his daughter
to help sell a scary global warming scam .
Gore , Podesta , and Steyer are the best of pals and would love nothing more than to have a direct pipeline into Trump to help bring him down . Stating the obvious ,
they mean him absolutely no good and will do every thing they can to wreck his Presidency one way or the other .
Lets hope Ivanka dedicates her influence and smarts to help real people and solve real problems .
Stein got 1 % of the vote for a reason . The global warming con game is over .

amirlach

Ricky C

She better not. Just like its said, everyone worked very hard, myself particularly to get the waste out of the “Climate Change” feeding trough for consultants who do nothing for the economy. If I want to make sure my medical supplies at a local hospital in third world countries that I visit are modern and effective, their economy has to be booming, not cut down by giving money to international Climate Change hustlers.

JayPee

Dale

I don’t know whether or not Tim Ball actually made the above posting but if so, it’s in very poor taste and severely weakens his potential as a climate authority. Spamming web sites (I’ve seen this several times before on other sites) is not the way to gather interest or respect. People usually ignore such spam and laugh it off as just another fly-by-night.
I’ve read many of Tim Ball’s articles and have heard him speak via video. He has too much to offer to stoop to this low level nonsense, if this posting is indeed from Tim Ball.